Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Party On No Stripe

My friend Brian, a few years ago, pointed out that most A's players look the same. And it has to do with their uniforms. So much white, so tight. Every year, the A's are these long-legged, stick figure ghosts.

I also realized they don't have a stripe down their pantlegs. I'm at work, so I haven't fully researched this, but a quick check of Google Images tells me that most teams have the stripe. Obviously, all the fully pinstriped teams have it. But only a select few--the Cardinals, Dodgers, A's, and (sometimes) (?) Rangers--don't. I vote for the A's to add a stripe. I think they'd look less like Aryan Ninja Mummies that way.

I've also realized that the Dressed to the Nines site doesn't show the side of the pants. A huge mistake on an otherwise awesome site.

Actually Jere, you can see the side of the pants through 1994; which is when the Marc Okkonen drawings from Baseball Uniforms of the 20th Century go up to:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/uniforms.shtml

I agree though, that the thin stripes look better in general. I know in the Cardinals case, they don't want anything else on the uniform competing for attention with the 'redbirds on bat' logo on the chest. I think the A's should go back to the Old English A on the right side, like on the old Philadelphia A's uniforms.

But I digress. This has been around the baseball blog world today, but in case you missed it:

http://blog.nbx.com/2006/10/ny_yankees_liar.html

A short interview with the great-grand-nephew of the original owner of the Dunbars, who it turns out was a thoroughly corrupt cop and politician with a 'Gangs of New York' background. Some things never change. And apparently they stole the NY logo from the City, or at least from NYPD.